Talk:Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows
Length This always happens. I make a plan, it looks nice and neat, then I get to actually write the book and realise that Harry can't possibly do all that in just one chapter. So what I thought were going to be two chapters have now become four. I still don't think the book will be as long as 'Phoenix', but if that keeps happening... no, it won't. I'm looking at the plan, and it can't. Surely. Please. Discuss I think that this might mean that this book will be as long a Pheniox! I wish it was longer than an unabrdiged dictionary of all languages including slang words (LOL). Chris Chaud 21:23, 4 March 2006 (UTC) *In the past, I'd heard that JK Rowling said that book 7 will be as long as Encyclopedia Britannica, and at other times, simply just "very long." I don't see how it could be shorter than OotP. last word *Er...isn't the last word supposively Scar, not Potter? *True, that should be fixed *According to Mugglenet on July 6, 2007: Scar is no longer the last word. It was for a while, but has since changed. * Yeah, the last word was "well" from the sentence "All was well". ---- I think (I feel) that ‘the prophecy’ has long been fulfilled... Voldemort was ‘vanquished’ years ago, on the night when Harry got that‘scar’... ...but neither can still live, when the other 'survives'... saratchandrashenoi@yahoo.co.in ---- name of the book i understand the name was given on JKR's site, but since i missed it, does anyone know if the flash game is still available somewhere? I'd very much like to see it with my own eyes... :D -- 86.121.160.187 12:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC) Time of release I just wanted to clarify an edit I just made. The statement was that the release would be one minute after midnight local time for locations in the United States, and one minute after midnight BST in the UK "and other English-speaking countries". I work at a book store here in Canada, and I can say for certain that we're also observing the "local time" release. For example, folks in my previous home of Prince Edward Island will have access to the book a full 3 hours before our store is allowed to sell it here in Alberta. - 68.146.226.69 20:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC) "spoilers" While I am not personally bothered if I find out key information about this final book before I get the chance to read it, and I don't have an objection to "spoilers" being contained in articles if they're well-labelled, I think that until the book is actually released, we should leave out any information that comes from "leaked" copies, since these are unverifiable and unreliable. Faked images claiming to be scans from "leaked" copies have surfaced, and I think that between now and Saturday, any spoilers from "leaked" copies should be deleted immediately. Verifiable (or mostly verifiable) spoilers, such as the translator who revealed the identity of R.A.B., are acceptable. Unconfirmed twaddle is not. - UglinessMan 05:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC) House elf on cover I just removed a bit of trivia stating that there is a house elf on the cover of the British children's edition holding Gryffindor's sword. I removed this for two reasons. First of all, I'm not convinced it's Gryffindor's sword. I have a poster which is a blow-up of the cover (we got a few dozen of these at the book store where I work), and it looks like a dagger of some sort, but it appears much too small to be the sword, and doesn't have any identifying markings which would indicate that it is indeed that specific artifact. Second, there are several objects on this cover that might be cause for speculation, such as two pieces of what appears to be a suit of armor, but without further information, simply mentioning these objects seems pointless. In fact, all of the covers which have been released could be the subject of discussion and speculation, but nothing encyclopedic. A trivia section is fairly worthless when it only contains one piece of information which may or may not be accurate. If this is to be restored, I humbly request that 1) there be some sort of citation or information provided to support the idea that it's Gryffindor's sword (aside from the fact that it looks like a long pointy thing), and 2) that other relevant trivia items be added, making it an actual trivia section rather than a single tidbit. - UglinessMan 07:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC) *Spoiler Warning* Here are some points that I feel are important to add to this section. There are only two things that the knife/sword on the cover could be. *1) Bellatrix Lestrange's Dagger. *2) Gryffindor's Sword. The art on the book matches the description of Gryffindor's Sword, even tho it is quite small. Remember this is a kids cover, and the art is supposed to be for kids. Which House Elf is it? There are only two named house elves of significance. *1) Dobby *2) Kreacher If it is Dobby, then the dagger could be Bellatrix', as it is used to kill him. If the dagger is in fact Gryffindor's Sword then neither House Elf really comes into contact with it. Could it in fact be, not a house elf, but a goblin? The goblin Griphook aids Harry in his assault on Gringotts in exchange for the goblin made Sword of Gryffindor. Harry intents do trick Griphook, but is double-crossed by the goblin who steals the sword. The surrounding stuff on the cover, the coins and various shinies, seem also to indicate that this is infact the point when Harry and friends break into Gringotts. This lends more weight to the theory that Griphook is the unknown creature on Harry's back on the cover. The only combinations that really work are: *1) Dobby and Bellatrix' Dagger *2) Griphook and Gryffindor's Sword Thoughts? --Majushi 11:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC) If you read the chapter in question, it is quite obvious that choice #2 is the correct one (it is Griphook the goblin, who is holding the Gryffindor sword). Yes, the sword appears small, but that was what Griphook made out with as they spilled out of the vault, which was a major plot point. --Dlsimon 05:31, 22 November 2007 (UTC) Spoilers 2 These are confirmed copies from a stolen book from an unnamed internet community I belong to. They are absolutely reliable, for they are pictures and there is absolutely no person in the world capable of photoshopping 770 pages. They are absolutely real, if they came from the right place. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.1.35.217 (talk • ) . :I don't know if I've ever seen such a complete piece of rubbish. It's almost too easy to pick apart every part of your assertion. :*''These are confirmed copies from a stolen book'' :Confirmed by who? By what source? Saying the word "confirmed" does not make for confirmation. This is an online encyclopedia, not a gossip club. :*''from an unnamed internet community I belong to.'' :As long as it remains unnamed, then it is a completely meaningless claim. Anyone could come here and add nonsense, and claim "it's from some community I belong to which I can't tell you the name of but I promise it's true!" :*''They are absolutely reliable, for they are pictures and there is absolutely no person in the world capable of photoshopping 770 pages.'' :Nonsense. First of all, there are countless people out there with twisted imaginations and lots of time on their hands. Second, the assertion is not that they are "photoshopped" (manipulated), but simply that there is no proof yet that the "leaked" copy is genuine. Someone wouldn't have to manipulated images, it's possible that someone obtained a fanfic, used a publishing program to give the same layout as the previous books, then printed it out and bound it to look like a book. :*''They are absolutely real, if they came from the right place.'' :And what would that "right place" be? Making an unsourced unreliable claim to support an unsourced unreliable claim is circular logic. It proves nothing, it means nothing. I work at a book store, I could claim that we got our copies early, and I have one right beside me, then proceed to give details about the storyline. And you would have no way to prove me wrong. And you wouldn't have to, either, because the onus would not be on you to prove a negative, the onus would be on me to prove my claim with something more than another claim. :In summary, an unsourced unreliable claim cannot be proven by another unsourced unreliable claim, especially coming from someone using an anonymous IP and providing no details whatsoever. - UglinessMan 18:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC) where can i stichk this spoiler? Dumbledore is rumoured to survive, meaning that Snape is on his side and that Malfoy is being led into a trap!!!!!! Dennis Creevy Why is Dennis Creevy listed as a killed? Having just read the book I have no recollection of reading about his death anywhere. Colin's body was found, as stated in his article, but there is no mention of Dennis anywhere in the book. Alive or Dead. --Majushi 21:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC) :*I took Dennis Creevey off of the people killed list on the page. --Sonic80 18:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC) "Harry's Horcurx" Here, it is explained he cannot be killed by Voldemort whilst Voldemort lives, since he used Harry's blood to recreate his body, and Lily's protection binds the two. hmm, would this mean that Voldemort was something like Harry's horcrux and nobody would have been able to kill Harry while Voldemort lived? or was just Voldemort unable to kill Harry. Neville Longbottom and Gryffindor's Sword OK, I'm dense, but could someone please explain how Neville Longbottom ends up with Gryffindor's Sword to kill Nagini? :Basically, as Dumbledore says in Chamber of Secrets, only a true Gryffindor can pull the sword from the Sorting Hat. Harry did it in the Chamber, regardless of the sword's location in Dumbledore's office. Neville, having shown that he is a true Gryffindor through various brave and selfless acts in the previous years, was able to pull the sword from the hat regardless of the fact that it was in Griphook's possession at the time. - Cavalier One 07:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC) ::Thank you. That seems a little obscure. I would have thought the point would have been made clear in the immediate text. As it stands it looks pretty much like deux ex machina. Bill Willis 12:10, 25 August 2007 (UTC) :::It's all to do with mirroring - Harry gets the sword in Chamber of Secrets and kills a snake - the Basilisk. Neville gets it in Deathly Hallows to kill Nagini, another snake. Its a symbol for the Gryffindor victory over the symbol of Slytherin. She set it up years before, just like the dragon rumour at Gringotts that allows them to escape. - Cavalier One 12:14, 25 August 2007 (UTC) After Deathly Hallows facts J.K.Rowling has already given a bit of information that was noti included in the novel about what happened to the characters after the book ended. Should this information be included in a part of this page or on another page. I know it is on the character's pages that it pretains to, but what if you do not know everything that has been given and you want to know what else we know about the characters? Just a thought. I could easily have it's own little place on the Deathly Hallows page, or if there ends up to be too much we can give it it's own page. I vie more for a spot of the Deathly Hallows page though. I suggest this because I was trying to find out more about the characters after the book but didn't know what all had been said and about who to find it. If I am just blind and/or stupid and it does have a spot already it wouldn't be the first time I did something like that. --65.93.164.243 01:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC) :I don't really think the place should be on the Deathly Hallows page - its for the book. I think it might be appropriate to make a page containing a summary of facts released during her subsequent interviews. Is there any fact in particular you felt didn't have a home in a character (or other) article? -- DarkJedi613 (Talk) 02:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC) ::It wasn't just any fact it was all the facts. I was just making a suggestion of putting them on this page, but if you think it would be better on a seperate page of its own. That is cool. (oh, if the user thing isn't the same, this is 65.93.164.243) --65.93.164.243 01:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC) :::Yes, I see, well I think if its all the facts it would definitely be better to put it on a seperate page. And yes your IP address is the same. Have you ever though of ? :) -- DarkJedi613 (Talk) 01:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC) ::::You know something. That is a very smart idea... --64.230.38.145 00:14, 30 September 2007 (UTC) :::::So, I noticed a little while ago a timeline page of what occures between 1998 and 2017, but that just has dates pretty much. Is there a page that has the events that occure after the book, and if there isn't one maybe we should make it. It has been discussed. Oh, and I now have a login:) PS: If no one objects to the creation of this page then I will begin the preperations. --Meraculas 21:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC) ::::Okay, I have a mini makeshift draft of what the page could be with the information I could find, posted on my talk page. Check it out to see if it might be alright and feel free to add to it as more info comes. If anyone thinks it would make a good article then by all means post it. Just put a link on the talk page and I will remove the stuff I have on it, or remove the info and replace it with the link.--Meraculas 21:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC) Secret Keeper of Shell Cottage If Bill was the secret keeper of Shell Cottage then why was Ron able to tell Dobby where to take everyone when they were trapped in the Malfoy's basement? :From closer reading of the text, it seems that the Fidelius Charm wasn't cast on Shell Cottage under after Harry and co's arrival. Bill makes mention that it's because the Death Eaters know Ron was with Harry, and they could only have known that from the events at Malfoy Manor. The Charm was probably was cast as a result of Harry's arrival, not before it. We just didn't see it. - Cavalier One 12:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC) Revieled Details section I think that this section can be deleted because we know what happens in the book now and this is just pointless.Me_Potter_Fan 10:19, 25 January 2008 (UTC) Who was it that completly removed the book information? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 09MurphyM (talk • ) }| }|}}. Rated R? Does anyone think The Deathly Hallows movie will be rated R? I would like as many opinons as possible. I, personally, hope it isn't, because then I won't be allowed to watch it. Any opinions? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.220.128.22 (talk • ) }| }|}}. The End of the book is pretty dissapointing to me. It seems that JK's writing reached a peak at Phoniex, then it started falling after that. This is only an opinion.Helix Armada 18:47, 14 December 2008 (UTC) HUGE inconsistency I have found a huge flaw in the literature.. In the beginning of Deathly Hallows, when Hermoine is explaining to Harry the sacrifices she made, she explains that she wiped her parents memories clean and made them think they had no daughter, as well as instilling the desire to move to Australia. Later, however, in the cafe after Bill and Fleur's wedding, she says she's never performed a memory charm, but understands the general theory of it, and performs one upon the Death Eaters and the Muggle waitress.. Inconsistency?? : Nope, they're two different charms. The charm Hermione used on her parents altered their memories, while a Memory Charm removes them. --[[User:Cubs Fan2007|'Cubs Fan2007']] [[User talk:Cubs Fan2007|(Talk)]] 07:16, 25 December 2008 (UTC)